For two years members of parliament and academic as well as local experts have met in a parliamentary committee named Lessons from Afghanistan for Germany’s future connected engagement. They have identified mistakes that were made during Germany’s engagement in the country and have drawn conclusions for future development, security, and foreign policy initiatives.
Today, we know that the goals we set for democracy building were too optimistic from the very outset. We focused exclusively on areas we associate with successful democratization.
From the outset, elections were identified as the sole means for strengthening democratic institutions. This is just one example that illustrates our often culture-blind efforts in Afghanistan. The 2005 parliamentary elections were hailed as a success, but this single-minded focus neglected other key sources of legitimacy for a fledgling democracy, such as freedom of the press, opportunities for building political parties, and fostering wide acceptance of the rule of law.
The lessons we must now draw can serve as an axiom for future democracy building
«We didn’t grasp Afghanistan.» This quote summarizes the parliamentary committee’s interim report from February of this year. From the outset, goals were hardly attainable and that did not align with the realities on the ground. Later, these goals were neither reviewed or evaluated across departments, nor were they ever adjusted; this created a path towards dependency. In its interim report, the committee highlighted that a lack of information was clearly the most serious shortcoming during the early phase of Germany’s democracy-building efforts. Neither were the current situation nor country’s social structure analyzed adequately. In short: We neither asked, nor did we listen well enough or look closely enough. There was no comprehensive analysis of the ethnic, cultural, religious, and social aspects, nor of the country’s social structure or its urban-rural divide – all of which would have been necessary to develop a sound concept for the democratization of Afghanistan.
There was a lack of diversity in our selection of the Afghan actors we involved in our decision-making. In particular, we overemphasized the importance of the Afghan diaspora, which significantly restricted our view of the current situation in the country. Large parts of Afghan civil society, especially the interests of Afghan women, were not adequately considered, and often even blatantly neglected.
Civil society was defined almost exclusively through NGOs, while in Afghanistan, especially in rural areas, «traditional civil society» actually exists in formats such as councils of elders, shuras, jirgas, and mosques. However, since collaboration was mainly limited to NGOs, it failed to reach rural populations in the south, which massively exacerbated distribution conflicts in the country. When distributing financial resources, NGOs often primarily followed a clientelistic approach.
However, it would also be wrong to dismiss these shortcomings of democracy-building efforts as «Western arrogance» or sheer misjudgments. On the one hand, there were some encouraging democratic developments, such as logistical support in national elections and fostering media diversity. On the other hand, the lessons we must now draw can serve as axioms for foreign policy in general, and for international democracy building in particular.
Promoting democracy abroad is not a short-term project. It requires diligent planning, taking into account the local social fabric, the affected population, and their value systems. It must also be funded for the long term. Promoting democracy requires flexibility. It must be adaptable, open to criticism, and always pursue an inclusive approach that involves all social groups, rather than an exclusive top-down approach that creates new conflicts or exacerbates existing ones.
This is the only sustainable way to help establish stable political systems that meet the challenges of the 21st century and do justice to the universal aspirations of human rights, equality, justice, and political participation. Only when we listen, reflect, and regularly challenge our own practices can we offer a helping hand and support the difficult, long path towards sustainable democracy building.
Schahina Gambir is a member of the Bundestag for Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and chairwoman of the parliamentary committee Lessons from Afghanistan for Germany’s future connected engagement. She is a regular member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Committee for Family, Seniors, Women and Youth, and a deputy member of the Committee for Internal Affairs and Community.